wandelaar

Being understood makes one vulnerable to possibly legitimate criticism. It's much easier to pose as a genius by continually quoting scientific articles and by using scientific terms that one doesn't even understand oneself and by dropping the names of famous scientist that one claims to have corresponded with. I have noticed that ViYY makes big mistakes as soon as he writes something himself about mathematics (which I know a lot about), so he is obviously capable of posting pseudoscientific bullshit. That makes it highly doubtful that the rest of his posts would be of more value. The best option is to completely ignore it (call it "self-censorship" if you like), and to read the posts of those Bums who do have something interesting to offer and who at least make an attempt to be understood.

When I go from "Activity" to "Forums" I am being signed out. Why is that?

@ VonKrankenhaus That is correct - the most basic forms of theory are instinctual, and we share those with the higher animals. But terms such as "battery" and "thermodynamics" are definitely not instinctual. So you are merely avoiding to consider my argument that your pronouncements are not neutral descriptions of observations independent of theory.

Lets just concentrate on your first question. Both the words "battery" and "thermodynamics" are not neutral descriptive terms for particular sensory observations. They actually presuppose a large amount of physics to be understood. I don't dispute the correctness of the relevant physics. But what I do dispute is your claim that your pronouncements don't involve a theory. You're apparently unaware of the theoretical presuppositions involved in your pronouncements, but they are there nevertheless.

Thank heavens we have an Ignore Button!

Yes - we all to easily tend to forget this obvious truth.

Same to you.

@ VonKrankenhaus Apparently you believe in the possibility of pure observation unspoiled by theoretical presuppositions. But I don't. The modern philosophy of science has made it clear that no such thing is possible. Meditation and other spiritual practices can supply extraordinary experiences, but even those experiences have to be interpreted to mean something. That's why your pronouncements aren't the undeniable truths that you take them to be. All we (you and me included) are offering are perspectives, but some perspectives have more explanatory power than others.

As you apparently read it I'm wondering whether they were right after all...

Unhappily Frege's solution didn't last long as the smartass Bertrand Russell quickly discovered a paradox in Frege's foundations... But I think I get your idea that (rational) thinking should be a tool at best, and that it shouldn't block our appreciation of the creativity and richness of our life. Any model (spiritual or otherwise) will only represent a fraction of the properties and relations of the actual things it represents. And I agree that one should always keep that caveat in mind.

You will have to give a clearer presentation of your theory as I don't plan to put in the same amount of effort in decoding your verses as I am investing in my study of the Tao Te Ching...

If that is so - then so much the better!

I have no problem with your posts. But unhappily the discussion has taken an unproductive turn where I could not resist the compulsion to defend the legitimacy of rational analysis even where it concerns spiritual matters. I have read nothing to change my mind on that topic. Nevertheless I should have known that defending my rational stance is a hopeless cause on this forum.

@ Aetherous I don't need to do that to believe you. I also did the standing exercise some time ago, and it gave me a burning feeling in my calves and shoulders. So I am capable of experiencing bodily feelings in case anybody might doubt it. The disagreement revolves around the interpretation of those bodily feelings. Is "experiencing chi" just an expression for certain bodily feelings, or is it also a form of observation of something called "chi". If the latter than the observation can be more or less accurate as is the case with all kinds of observations. Now the problem is how to test the accuracy of our "experiences of chi". Can it even be tested, or is it just a belief system in which one is initiated by those who already believe it?

@ vonkrankenhaus There is a lot of - in my mind unnecessary - depreciatory talk about thinking and reasoning in both the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang tzu, although the actual doctrines arrived at in those books nicely complement modern scientific insights.

A lot of people who claim to know here! And they disagree with each other - so I am in the right place after all.

Point proven - you now even added some straw man fallacies for good measure. So I rest my case. Please reread your last post.

Understanding. No. I don't need them, and neither did Lao tzu and Chuang tzu. Knowing when to stop is essential. Or your misunderstanding. You must be feeling the same about that, as you are just as stubbornly fixed in your own perspective as I am in mine.

I have no problem at all in understanding the Tao rationally. How? Thus: The foundation of all things cannot be a thing itself, for than it would be just one of those things. So it is a non-thing that nevertheless somehow exists. And this is exactly what Lao tzu is saying. The Laws of Nature as explored by physics are a good example of this kind of existence: they also are not things but nevertheless exist. Scientific thought and logical analysis weren't as well developed in ancient times as they are today, and that's why Lao tzu and Chuang tzu didn't better appreciate them in their own time. This is why I feel comfortable with the knowledge of today in disagreeing with them on this one point of the relevance of rational thought and analysis.

Correct! Do you have a link that provides such a western explanation of what Chinese dudes (and their followers) are feeling and accomplishing?

I would definitely applaud explanations of chi in terms of western physiology, but all I am told here is that I should avoid the application of western science and should do away with intellectual considerations...

That's why I consider myself a philosophical Taoist.

Agreed. One has an inner sense about bodily function. And I take note of that because of its relevance to my health. There are also all kind of transitory feelings that I don't know how to interpret, and those I ignore. I have no doubt that by concentrating on the transitory feelings one can build them up into a whole area of "chi experiences", but as long as they don't relate to something verifiable those experiences are not to be interpreted as observations of something but rather as the results of prolonged (self)suggestion guided by (sub)cultural expectations of what one is supposed to experience. Meaningful to me is what is real, and that isn't personal. I date from before the post-truth generation.

Thank you. You may be right or you may be wrong. At this point I am not able to tell what's the case, and I am not willing to invest years of study and practice to experience something (chi ) that may not even exist. For instance I also don't believe in aura's, chakra's, reincarnation, or Gods, but I do believe that people are able to induce experiences in themselves that correspond to them. The human mind is very suggestible. Without methods to objectively test such experiences their value as a form of observation is doubtful at best. Even sensory observation has known errors. That's why one has to test one's conclusions by different methods to avoid drifting off into fantasy worlds. The latter doesn't "resonate" with me.

It were not actual dreams or stories, just slowly evolving pictures. There were no actions on my part, I was not involved in the images I saw.